THE US military is to bar journalists and photographers from documenting the recovery of bodies left on the streets of New Orleans by hurricane Katrina.

Lieutenant-General Russel Honore, the commander of the relief operation, said on Friday that while the military had allowed reporters covering the catastrophe free rein, it was now slamming the door shut out of respect for the possibly thousands of victims and their families.

"We've had total access to everything we've done  the good, the bad and the ugly  but that operation (the recovery of corpses) will be conducted with dignity and respect for the families," the general said.

"There will be zero access to that operation. It would not be good to have pictures of people, the deceased, shown on any media."

Lieutenant-General Honore called for published pictures of corpses to be removed from websites.

As the water is slowly drained by pumps  and more bodies are revealed  journalists will be restricted from entering the parts of the city that have been submerged.

HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) -- At the request of CNN, a federal judge in Texas Friday night blocked emergency officials in New Orleans from preventing the media from covering the recovery of bodies from Hurricane Katrina.

Attorneys for the network argued that the ban was an unconstitutional prior restraint on news gathering.

I think on the whole the US are more sensitive to this than we are in Britain. I think in Britain we would not be as respectful to this.

Personally I think that this is a good decision and the argument that there should be a record of this does not hold water because I am sure the army/local official whoever will take some sort of photos for record/legal reasons plus also assisting with autopsies though apart from long shots I do not think these should be released.

During WWII, I believe that up until Tarawa that we didn't allow war correspondents to freely publish pictures of the dead, but I believe that from Tarawa onward that we allowed such pictures of dead soldiers.

Otherwise, I cannot think of any such restriction on the press, but the history of journalistic photography is not a part of history that I spend a lot of time on, so perhaps such restrictions were more common than I thought?

How ridiculous plus also those taling heads at CNN who want to have the photos are not the ones that will have to take them exposing themselves to possible disease and mental horrors. I suspect a lot of the photographers on the ground in NO are not keen on participating.

HOUSTON, Texas (CNN) -- At the request of CNN, a federal judge in Texas Friday night blocked emergency officials in New Orleans from preventing the media from covering the recovery of bodies from Hurricane Katrina.

A "state of emergency" is in effect. The situation is no longer under the jurisdiction of the judge.

I also wonder if this "judge" has anything to say about the unconstitutional confiscation of firearms from law-abing citizens defending their homes from looters and thugs.

As a lesson in the changes PC has brought with it...after the Galveston Storm of 1900...looters and corpse photographers were shot on sight- no questions asked. Both activities stopped within 36 hours.

"On conservative talk radio, especially, Nagin has been characterized as an irrational and incompetent local official who lost control of his city, his police force and, ultimately, his senses when he publicly dressed down the president. Even some of his underlings think the critics may be right.

"He should have evacuated the place earlier," said one city firefighter, echoing a mostly whispered sentiment here as the collection of dead bodies begins in earnest. The firefighter asked not to be identified for fear of retribution.

Determining what could have been done better, and what mistakes were made, will take months and perhaps years. President Bush is among those vowing to do some accounting. In one recent interview, the mayor said that everyone, including him, shares the blame for the untold numbers of dead lying under the fetid waters that now cover 60 percent of the city. Pressed on the criticisms, Nagin shot back at a news conference this week: "To those who would criticize, where the hell were you?" he said. "Where the hell were you?"

==============================================

I guess because it's been such a disgusting drama queenish convention of idiots down there, but I'm cracking up at this whine of Nagin's. It's like the Menendez brothers whining that now they were orphans ... AFTER they killed their parents..... dear Lord, save us.

================================================

This snippet from the above article:

"Nagin has shown signs that he wants to reach out. Once the Superdome and the Convention Center -- from which horrible scenes were broadcast around the world -- were cleared, Nagin thanked everyone who provided resources and complimented the Army lieutenant general who helped get the ball moving. He also has attempted to show his human side.

"You know, my heart is broken," Nagin said. "And, you know, it's, it's a tough thing, when you see a city that you love so much, and you see it so devastated and so -- almost dead, and you wonder what the future looks like. I'm basically homeless now."'

28
posted on 09/10/2005 8:01:01 AM PDT
by STARWISE
(GITMO IS TOO GOOD FOR THE 911 TRAITORS -- SEND THEM ALL TO EGYPT FOR QUESTIONING.)

My Mom saw dead bodies in NO on CNN a couple nights ago - one had been murdered in a horrific way. No faces were shown but she wishes she had not seen this because as she says....you cannot UNsee what you have seen. Told her to quit watching CNN - they will be going for the sensational National Enquirer type coverage.

30
posted on 09/10/2005 8:05:48 AM PDT
by daybreakcoming
(May God bless those who enter the valley of the shadow of death so that we may see the light of day.)

Attorneys for the network argued that the ban was an unconstitutional prior restraint on news gathering.

There is no right to gather the news, only to publish what you have gathered. The press has no more right to be somewhere than members of the general public. In fact they have no special rights that the rest of us do not have.

OTOH, there is a "right of the people" to keep and bear arms, which the Constitution says "shall not be infringed" (or in the case of the LA Constitution, a "right of each citizen" which "shall not be abridged"). Where is court order restraining the police and National Guard from confiscating the arms of the citizens?

Yes, Don't know if that was before or after this -- but if it was before, and Honore is simply saying "I don't care", then I'd like to see how many federal marshals the court can call to enforce their order.

I hope they will keep the cameras out.

I'd like to know the constitutional argument for saying I can't stay in my own home because it is too dangerous, but the news media can go wherever they want because of a "free press".

Maybe those who don't want to evacuate should write a little note, put "MY NAME PRESS" on the top, and post it at their door, and say "you can't take me, I'm covering the aftermath!!!"

A "state of emergency" is in effect. The situation is no longer under the jurisdiction of the judge.

Where does that notion come from? It's within the Jurisdiction of the government of the United States, that makes it within the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts, if they are functioning, which they clearly are. Doesn't mean this judges decision is right. In fact, now that I think about it, the Fifth Circuit may not be functioning, unless it's set up in Houston, because it's normal location is New Orleans, which is less than a mile (in the drier direction) from the Superdome. Otherwise a federal district judge in Texas does not have jurisdiction in Louisiana.

U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison issued a temporary restraining order Friday against a "zero access" policy announced earlier in the day by Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who is overseeing the federal relief effort in the city, and Terry Ebbert, the city's homeland security director.

In explaining the ban, Ebbert said, "we don't think that's proper" to let members of the media view the bodies.

The judge was to consider granting a permanent injunction Saturday when the government announced its decision not to fight CNN's lawsuit.

In an e-mail to CNN staff, CNN News Group President Jim Walton said the network filed the the lawsuit to "prohibit any agency from restricting its ability to fully and fairly cover" the hurricane victim recovery process.

(snip)

.....Walton wrote, "CNN has shown that it is capable of balancing vigorous reporting with respect for private concerns."

=================================================

Mods: I leave it up to your judgement -- if you think this thread should be pulled.

41
posted on 09/10/2005 8:20:14 AM PDT
by STARWISE
(GITMO IS TOO GOOD FOR THE 911 TRAITORS -- SEND THEM ALL TO EGYPT FOR QUESTIONING.)

I have no problem with seeing the bodies covered up eg in body bags because that is the reality of the situation what worries me is the initial finding them being shown live especially if shown before families are advised.

These pictures would possibly identify the people that have died either from where they are found or what they are wearing/identifying marks etc and therefore relatives or friends watching would see before they are officially advised.

Shots showing long range recovery after the bodies are placed in bag or covered IMHO is acceptable but any photos before that should only be taken and used for official identification and autopsy purposes and should not be released to the media or general public.

From Article: "At the request of CNN, a federal judge in Texas Friday night blocked emergency officials in New Orleans from preventing the media from covering the recovery of bodies from Hurricane Katrina."

I am so sick of the media. They DIDN'T want any pictures taken or shown of the 100's of people who jumped out of the World Trade Center, but they sure want pictures of all the dead and bloated drowning victims.

The difference is if they had shown the jumpers the people might have HATED THE TERRORISTS MORE, but if they show the bloated drowned people they will accomplish what they want and get a majority of the people to HATE THE GOVERNMENT MORE.

44
posted on 09/10/2005 8:22:37 AM PDT
by Spunky
("Everyone has a freedom of choice, but not of consequences.")

They santized the airwaves of 9/11 pics just days after the event. Wonder why they are so gung-ho to publicize the corpses of this disaster?

Not only did they sanitize, I don't recall many, if any, pictures of dead bodies even early on. They showed the soon to be dead bodies plunging from the towers, and may have shown a body bag or covered corpse, but I don't recall anything like the picture of the dead guy outside the Convention center. A guy clearly not killed by the storm, BTW.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.